Since I've already answered your question, explicitly, directly, in every
rephrasing of it you come up with, a zillion times, allow me a couple of
paragraphs of ramble before answering it directly (again):
I see. So you, Greg, can make the assumption that, regarding the question
'whats the reason we're here', a rational-observation approach can be
discounted/questioned, presumably disregarding the huge world of trivial
rationality that shows we just stumbled along as chemicals. If I, JP, on
the other hand, make the implicit assumption that, regarding the question
'whats the reason we're here', observing the huge world of trivial
rationality that shows we just stumbled along as chemicals, a rational
answer is perfectly fine and obvious, as obvious as 'santa' - that's no
good at all.
Greg, I have told you like, ten times, "yes, obviously, self-evidently,
trivially, fully, surely, commonplacely, the standards I am using are,
indeed!, everyday rational observation". _Addionally_ I have pointed out,
ten times, and the reason we're having this discussion, that ...
"it is a bit silly of you to ask that, because _self evidently_
that is the standard I am using, which is no real amazing
surprise".
Now note that *YOU* do think it is a surprise and *YOU* (quite amazingly)
feel that *I'm* the one who's 'in the wrong' so to speak 'by making that
assumption'. *Your* initial response way back when was "well this makes me
irritated because you assume you know everything about the universe".
Your response was not, which would have been perfectly reasonable "well
fair enough that's the obvious, self-evident, trivial, so-what, rational,
commonplace, known, factual view, that we all agree to, but, JP, ... what
about leaving the rational world behind and looking at this question in
another blah-blah standards of etc etc the pope etc etc metaphysical etc
etc".
I'm sure you can see or would agree that _some_ questions fall into the
'santa type' category, where, if, someone challenges with a "well what are
your standards?" response, that is simply dumb.
And _some_ questions fall into an "ultimate basis of logic" discussion
(like, 'does induction blow?').
How come 'your' categorization of which questions are which, is valid,
whereas 'my' categorization of same is me 'making an assumption' ? (And
being irritating! <: ) Again, how come you can 'magically' assert, 'well,
this is clearly _not_ a Santa-like question, you've got to tell us JUST WHY
this particular question can be addressed rationally, etc', whereas, I can
*not* just magically assert 'well, this clearly _is_ a Santa-like
question'.
Now, in answer to your question, for the zillionth time ... [even though
it's metamorphized from 'this is irritating', to 'what are your
standards?', to the latest, 'why do you think these standards are
suitable?'] .... in answer to GREG'S QUESTION ...
>And the whole point you've been *missing* is the request to
>explain why in the 'context' of the question "Is there a reason
>we're here?" 'ordinary rational observations' are they 'obvious'
>choice for evaluation.
Greg --- YES ...
YES !!!
Y E S !!!!!!!!!
******
E
Y
S
!!
*******
.. if you discount ordinary, rational observations; if you say "OK, sure,
so there's no reason we're here, in the rational, everyday sense, we're
just chemicals .. BUT let's look at more complex ways of looking at the
world 'meaning', let's look at things like God existing in and of itself
just because belief was it's own value, lets look at metaphysics, etc etc"
... *IF* you say that OF COURSE, Greg, I *TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY AGREE*
(as I must) that one can make any claim for or about meaning or god or
purpose (or anything).
I've been saying this all along, that I completely agree with you.
And I assume you realize one can *never* say (to any question) that
'rational observation' is the 'only, bedrock' way to address the issue at
hand ?
*OF COURSE* the reply can always be 'meaning can have its own meaning' or
'santa _could_ exist because there is no real lower bound on certainty' or
'but god exists in the way the pope defines it', etc. etc.
One can NEVER say that rational observation is the only way to look at an
issue. If you think you've made some point or backed me into a logical
corner by saying .. "ah, but JP, explain why ordinary rational
observations are the best mode here .." - no, you haven't. You've just
pointed out a trivial obviosity.
As I've been asking you all along, how come on this particular question at
hand, you can 'get away with' (so to speak) challenging me "ah, jp, but
TELL US WHY you use RATIONAL OBSERVATION here!" ... how come you can 'get
away with that' on this question, but if the question had been 'does santa
exist' you could never 'get away with that' .... ?
*OF COURSE* you could say to Galileo, "ah, Galileo, but is ordinary
rational observation the best mode here - what about the entire weight of
the church and the millions of people that feel almost every aspect of the
heavens is totally sacrosanct and subject to metaphysical interpretations
by the pope, etc .."
(Probably the 'we are not center of universe' idea was challenged much
more, Greg, than anyone today seriously questions birth-by-chemicals).
Anyway - what would you achieve by 'challenging' the G-man in such a way?
He would say "um, yeah, I guess, sure, discount observation and, of course,
rather trivially, you or anyone can note that heaven exists in 'some sense'
and we are the center of everything in 'some sense', etc ... hey, now,
check out this, you can see Venus in here!" <;
>And the whole point you've been *missing* is the request to
>explain why in the 'context' of the question "Is there a reason
>we're here?" 'ordinary rational observations' are they 'obvious'
>choice for evaluation.
(1) When anyone makes _any_ point, one can raise the above challenge
(2) I completely agree that we could discount rationality and say anything
we want about, almost anything, from the roundness of the world to whether
we have a meaning - you're 101% right (as I've said numerous times, but you
1, ignore me, 2, ignore my requests to see if you realize what you're
asking is trivial, and 3, ask me again! and again! and again! You'll
probably ask me again!)
(3) I, JP, have (of course) (as I've said) (over and over) *NO* answer to
your question 'why use rational observation here?', because there is no
answer to that question; and, you've made no discoveries or challenges by
asking it. As anyone alive during the sixties knows, <:, you can challenge
the rational basis of _anything_. "Well, I'm building this bridge, what's
the load factor of 12-t-epsilon?" "hey man, does it _really_ matter? Do you
_really_ need this bridge, can you _really_ give me any reason why rational
observation is the obvious choice for figuring this load factor thing, and
what is a bridge anyway - smell this!"
{And, Greg, I'm TOTALLY agreeing with you, the hippie would be PERFECTLY,
TOTALLY, correct - EXACTLY analogous to your correctness in this situation.
Me and the bridge engineer have NO - ZERO - ZILCH response to you.
**>>YOURE RIGHT<<** - there is NEVER an answer to "explain why rational
observation is the obvious choice here"}
(4) Again, just so it's clear and you don't ask again, I have ***NO***
answer to the question 'why use rational observation here?' - there NEVER
IS an answer. I defy you to show me any question to which there is a good
'reason' to stick to rational observation; *of course* you can always go
off into philosophical ga-ga land; *of course* that may all be correct (all
of reality may be an illusion to begin with, i agree, santa may exist, i
agree, st. louis may not exist, i agree, the moon may be cheese, i agree,
someone may have gone poof, i agree, galileo may have his head up his butt,
i agree, there may be meaning, i agree); *of course* there is no response
more than a layer deep {examples: "people commonly use rational observation
on this topic" "I think so" "it seems obvious" "its as prosaic an assertion
as the world being round" "its now established by centuries of thought" etc
etc} .. when ANYONE challenges "why use rational observation here?" to ANY
assertion.
Go on! Ask me again!
___________________
jpm@tweb.com
I can't complain, but sometimes I still do!
- Joe Walsh